Bug 1451066

Hello,

As a new coming packager, I'll do an informal review of your package review request. Please feel free to make any comment about this.

Summary of review potential problems.

MUST 
   - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. 
     40 files have unknown license.
     Global BSD licence is OK, so I think that 40 files are OK (not necessary 
     to add licence field in each one)?

SHOULD
   - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified. 
     Maybe it should be necessary to explain the goal of this patch in a 
     comment in the spec file. It should also be necessary to name it with 
     an explicit name and probably beginning with the package name
     (python-cli-helpers-001_don_t_install_tests.tabular_output.patch for
     example).


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (dependencies not found: python-terminaltables)
  - not blocking as request review for it is present #1451054


===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 40 files have unknown
     license. 
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.6/site-
     packages, /usr/lib/python3.6
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[-]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2
     -cli-helpers , python3-cli-helpers
[-]: Package functions as described.
[-]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 1.3.4 starting (python version = 3.5.3)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled dnf cache
Start: cleaning dnf metadata
Finish: cleaning dnf metadata
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
Mock Version: 1.3.4
INFO: Mock Version: 1.3.4
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s): /home/nico/Systeme/Fedora/Reviews/1451066-python-cli-helpers/results/python3-cli-helpers-0.1.0-2.fc27.noarch.rpm /home/nico/Systeme/Fedora/Reviews/1451066-python-cli-helpers/results/python2-cli-helpers-0.1.0-2.fc27.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 27 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/nico/Systeme/Fedora/Reviews/1451066-python-cli-helpers/results/python3-cli-helpers-0.1.0-2.fc27.noarch.rpm /home/nico/Systeme/Fedora/Reviews/1451066-python-cli-helpers/results/python2-cli-helpers-0.1.0-2.fc27.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python2-cli-helpers-0.1.0-2.fc27.noarch.rpm
          python3-cli-helpers-0.1.0-2.fc27.noarch.rpm
          python-cli-helpers-0.1.0-2.fc27.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Requires
--------
python2-cli-helpers (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python2-terminaltables

python3-cli-helpers (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3-terminaltables



Provides
--------
python2-cli-helpers:
    python-cli-helpers
    python2-cli-helpers
    python2.7dist(cli-helpers)
    python2dist(cli-helpers)

python3-cli-helpers:
    python3-cli-helpers
    python3.6dist(cli-helpers)
    python3dist(cli-helpers)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/dbcli/cli_helpers/archive/v0.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 0e94780ec62da9a389e6e04e9331ea32ab827f31c3e47c69401fc9af545f9c67
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0e94780ec62da9a389e6e04e9331ea32ab827f31c3e47c69401fc9af545f9c67


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1451066 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6


I'll make an informal review of the python-terminaltables later in the evening.

Cordially,


-- 
NVieville

Hello,

I've to complete the informal review I've made above with these Items I made "Not applicable" instead of "Pass".

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.

Sorry for the mistake. 

Cordially,


-- 
NVieville

Thank you Terje! Why did you rename the package from "python-cli_helpers" to "python-cli-helpers" ?

aesthetics? Rpms use separator between words and fields, in rpm context using - over _ make sense to me.

Hmm not that I really mind but when I run: dnf list 'python*_*' I get 102 python packages with an underscore. As far as I know a Python RPM is named like:

python3-cli-helpers-1.8.1-4.fc25.noarch.rpm

python<python-version>-<package-name>-<version>-<release><dist>.<arch>.rpm

Now I think an underscore might be a better separator because rpm filenames are split by a minus (-) and dot (.).

If I remember correctly subpackages are also separated by a minus sign as default. So an user might expect python3-cli-helpers is a subpackage of python3-cli (which doesn't exist).

But, again, I don't really mind, if you think python3-cli-helpers is better, no problem.

Side note from a reader of the package-reviews mailing list:

If in doubt, use the name that matches the upstream name as closely as possible (in this case, with an underscore).

spec: https://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/python-cli_helpers/python-cli_helpers.spec
srpm: https://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/python-cli_helpers/python-cli_helpers-0.2.0-1.fc25.src.rpm
koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20188970
changelog:
 - 0.2.0
 - Rename

Nice! Could you please replace cli_helpers for %{pypi_name} ?

Where? 

I don't want to use macros in url and sources (makes it too hard to use cut and paste into browser), for names it's more safe without macro imho, for file listing it's fine.

Well... I thought about everywhere, but you have a good point it's nice if the url can be easily cut and pasted into a browser. But that isn't possible now because we're using %{version} (which is IMHO good).

Are there any package guidelines about pypi_name? Most .spec files I've seen are using pypi_name extensively, but I agree with you that it doesn't make thinks easier.

- You may use the %{summary} macro to avoid repeating the summary.
- You may use a %desc macro to avoid repeating the description.
- Please update to 0.2.3
- I see no reference to backports.csv in the Requires. Is this expected?
- Maim package name should be python-cli-helpers. You can add a provide for python-cli_helpers to help users find this package.


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 40 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1451066-python-
     cli_helpers/licensecheck.txt
[X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[X]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[X]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[X]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 6 files.
[X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[X]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[X]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[X]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[X]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python2-cli_helpers , python3-cli_helpers
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[X]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[X]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python2-cli_helpers-0.2.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
          python3-cli_helpers-0.2.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
          python-cli_helpers-0.2.0-1.fc27.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.



Requires
--------
python3-cli_helpers (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3-pygments
    python3-terminaltables

python2-cli_helpers (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python2-pygments
    python2-terminaltables



Provides
--------
python3-cli_helpers:
    python3-cli_helpers
    python3.6dist(cli-helpers)
    python3dist(cli-helpers)

python2-cli_helpers:
    python-cli_helpers
    python2-cli_helpers
    python2.7dist(cli-helpers)
    python2dist(cli-helpers)



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/c/cli_helpers/cli_helpers-0.2.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : d5af90e8c01e67608a58ed1ebd2c5fdaf4bcc8bf64da3964f50abece962fca23
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d5af90e8c01e67608a58ed1ebd2c5fdaf4bcc8bf64da3964f50abece962fca23


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1451066
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Thanks!

Update package:

changelog: 
- 0.2.3
- Rename
- Use summary and desc macros
- Drop Python 2 sub package for now, backports.csv not available
- Add patch to remove Python 2 specific reqs into Python 3 package
 
spec: https://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/python-cli-helpers/python-cli-helpers.spec
srpm: https://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/python-cli-helpers/python-cli-helpers-0.2.3-1.fc26.src.rpm
koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21266292

Looks good to me. Approved.

(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.stg.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-cli-helpers. You may create the branch "f26" using git in about 10 minutes.

Please disregard my comment above. This was a test in staging.

(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-cli-helpers

python-cli-helpers-0.2.3-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-f872b854bf

python-cli-helpers-0.2.3-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-1fb2e16907

python-cli-helpers-0.2.3-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-f872b854bf

python-cli-helpers-0.2.3-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-cli-helpers-0.2.3-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.